megan basham movie reviews

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Wyatt Graham

Faith | Books | Culture

A Timeline of The Debates around Megan Basham’s Shepherds for Sale

August 3, 2024 by wagraham

The reception Megan Basham’s book  Shepherds for Sale  earlier this week led to intense disagreement online. In this short article, I chronicle the timeline around these responses and link to key articles and videos. 

This article will be updated semi-regularly as events transpire. So feel free to bookmark this link and check back from time-to-time.

July 30: The First Review

The first review I saw of the book came from  Samuel James , a review I shared on the evening of July 30 th . As of August 3, my tweet has gained over 100,000 impressions.

Since James critically reviewed Basham’s book, Basham herself  responded  to some of his claims on X. From her point of view, James misrepresented parts of her argument. 

Wesley Hill on July 30th also questioned Basham’s ability to fact-find because she misidentified the seminary he went to:

On August 1 st , Doug Wilson  recommended Basham’s book .

One might have guessed the disagreements would slowly fizzle away as reviews came out for Basham’s book.  After all, most books receive critical reviews, and usually in the course of things, an author will reply to those criticisms either by admitting fault or defending her claims. 

But that did not happen. 

August 2: Gavin Ortlund

On August 2 nd  Gavin Ortlund released  a critical review —or more accurately a pushback against Basham’s characterization of Ortlund. Ortlund avers that Basham misrepresented him when it comes to climate change. 

Many online responses to this video did not follow traditional lines of argument in which one proves and disproves a conclusion based on evidence. Instead, passionate replies inveighed against one person or another. 

Yet some reasoned exchanges also occurred. For example, Basham herself disagreed  with Ortlund on X. She maintains her criticism of Ortlund’s view of climate change. 

Probably the simplest way to see  Basham’s point of view  written out is her response to Neil Shenvi on X. 

Shenvi for his part was unpersuaded by Basham. 

Whether Ortlund aimed to expose uncritical thinking or promote a political position seems to define this aspect of the debate. 

Ortlund evidently felt misrepresented, and so he recorded  a second video  to clarify his view of climate change. 

According to Ortlund, he wants people “to think more” about climate change. He does not see himself of as a political activist. For Ortlund, one can disagree over climate change, and that is okay. By contrast, Ortlund believes that the first chapter of her book on climate change leads off her argument against pastors trading the truth for money. 

August 3: The Dispatch Review

A number of articles came out to comment or weigh in upon the debate (see  here  and  here ). See also this interview at  Daily Wire  and on  Eric Metaxas’s show . And also note Jesse Johnson’s positive review at  The Cripplegate.  Lastly, Ben Marsh has created  an X thread  where he lists what he perceives as “lies” in Basham’s book. 

But probably the next advance in the debate about this book centres on Warren Cole Smith’s critical review of Basham’s work at  The Dispatch . 

Given Smith’s ministry at  MinistryWatch , he too shares Basham’s concern about how money corrupts large organizations. That said, the major criticism of Smith can be summed up  in this paragraph :

In order to arrive as close to the truth as possible, one of an opinion journalist’s most basic duties is to understand and convey the perspectives of people with whom he or she disagrees. Basham fails to do this in her book—and that leads her to get a whole host of basic facts wrong. It’s worth asking: If we can’t trust her with the basic facts, why should we trust her with the interpretation of these facts?

Basham then responded to some of concerns that Smith brought up in his article here .

Danny Slavich offered counter-evidence t hat Basham has in the past reached out to someone at 10pm for comment on an article that comes out 10am the next morning.

The implication here being that while Basham may claim to responsibly reach out to authors that she speaks about, the on-the-ground reality is that she does not attain to the high standards she herself claims to hold.

August 5: Neil Shenvi

On August 5th, Neil Shenvi created a list of endnote errors in Megan Basham’s book. He joins John Reasnor who had also created a similar list . One example of Shenvi’s shows that Basham found objectionable words in a speech of JD Greear and appears to have editorialized them into her argument in ways that do not match the source material’s intent.

If Shenvi and Reasnor’s claims bear out the truth, then Basham should explain her editorializing of such sources. Given the severe stakes of a work titled Shepherds for Sale , readers should expect vetted facts and sound arguments.

Kevin Twit , for example, wrote: “How many times does someone need to misquote and misrepresent before you begin to suspect the thesis may be forced? Turns out that for too many people I know, there is no limit to factual errors if the thesis fits your view of the world.”

That said, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Prof 18:17). For this reason, readers should eagerly and charitably anticipate responses from Basham that either vindicate her use of sources or result in a retraction. Truth must stand as paramount here.

While not comprehensive in her response, Basham denied Shenvi’s claims about her work on X.

Reflections

I haven’t yet read  Shepherds for Sale . My entry into this debate came from sharing a book review by Samuel James. Given these recent discussions, I may read the book. But I have found myself less interested in the content of the book and more interested in the responses to the book. 

At this moment, I don’t have the time to write out my full thoughts. I’d only note that the merits of book should be judged by the book itself. Yet much of the online discussions seem wrapped around perceived motivations and friend-enemy distinctions. 

It would be better, I think, if Basham responded to the critical reviews by noting their evidence and either admitting fault or vindicating her argument. She has begun to do this on X, but I think a longer article would be appropriate.

With that said, the argument of the book that pastors have exchanged truth for a leftist agenda should be confronted (as noted in the subtitle). 

If it is true, then it is a damning truth; if it is not, then it is a damning slander. And if, as these things usually reveal, the truth is somewhere in the middle, then that  somewhere  must be found. 

August 12: JD Greear Responds

Since I plan to read Basham’s book eventually, I’ll leave my refections as they are above. For now, I would like to add that JD Greear gave an open response to Megan Basham. In essence, Greear complains that the book’s “eporting is neither careful nor charitable, and in many places, demonstrably untrue, as even the simplest of internet searches reveals.”

Greear explains that his purpose in writing is for his local church, The Summit Church. He wants them to be equipped to understand and respond to criticisms in the book about him. This is important because the article itself is long and detailed. So it’s unlikely to be read by those convinced of Basham’s counter-thesis.

Basham herself provided an equally long response on X to Greear, which one can read by clicking here . Basham also posted an article version of her response here .

August 15: Neil Shenvi Revi ews Basham’s Book

Neil Shenvi wrote a detailed review of Basham’s book , pointing to the factual errors therein. In summary, he writes, “Even if you wholeheartedly believe that #BigEva needs to be destroyed, you cannot turn a blind eye to factual errors in Basham’s book, especially since they pertain to the actual character of actual people.”

Share this:

Discover more from wyatt graham.

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Type your email…

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Which Shepherds Are For Sale?

A new book about evangelicalism is really about Donald Trump.

• Facebook (Meta)
• Twitter (X)
• { navigator.clipboard.writeText('https://thedispatch.com/article/which-shepherds-are-for-sale/'); }); setTimeout(() =>{copied=false}, 2000);">

Today’s evangelical movement is a mess. Although they might disagree on much else, even most evangelicals can agree on that. The question is: Why?

Megan Basham, a writer for The Daily Wire , offers her answer in her new book Shepherds For Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded The Truth for a Leftist Agenda , the tone of which is summarized well right in the title.

Profiling evangelical leaders and institutions she claims have been co-opted or outright bought-off by funders and foundations on the left, Basham’s book asserts that such “evangelical elite” have betrayed Christian positions on issues such as abortion, immigration, and sexuality in order to curry favor with a more mainstream cultural elite. 

Basham is right that many “shepherds” are, in fact, “for sale.” But the unintended irony—and fundamental flaw—of her book is that the corrupting money is not on the evangelical left, as she claims, but on the populist right. The rise of such organizations as Turning Point USA (and its subsidiary Turning Point Faith), the Epoch Times , and The Daily Wire itself —organizations that combined bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue—bear witness to the financial benefits of pandering to populists. Turning Point USA, for example, now hosts pastors conferences that feature evangelical MAGA apologists like Eric Metaxas, Sean Feucht, and Rob McCoy. A recent event in San Diego attracted 1,200 pastors. Turning Point USA’s annual revenue now tops $80 million .

If Basham is right that the evangelical movement is sick, she has misdiagnosed the true cause of the illness: departing from the Gospel to pursue ideology and political activism. The movement has moved well beyond the responsibilities of Christian citizenship in pursuit of realpolitik .

I will admit, my interest in Shepherds for Sale is both personal and professional. As an investigative journalist and the editor of MinistryWatch , I have plenty of my own beefs with “Big Eva,” as some call the “Evangelical Industrial Complex.” These concerns have been outlined in hundreds of articles and two books: Faith-Based Fraud and A Lover’s Quarrel With The Evangelical Church (2009). I share many of the same concerns about the evangelical movement that Basham outlines—including a co-dependent relationship with the federal government by groups such as World Relief, a problem I wrote about for World magazine in 2009. I also share her concerns about climate change catastrophists, and have likewise written about that topic for The Stream and the Cornwall Institute, an organization Basham praises. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I know Megan Basham. I recommended her to World magazine, where she subsequently spent 10 years as a movie reviewer and culture editor.

But I also know most of the people she criticizes in this book. I’ve talked to all but a few of them, and in a few cases— Francis Collins and Kristin Du Mez , in particular—my interviews could be fairly confrontational. But Basham’s descriptions do not match the people I know. 

In order to arrive as close to the truth as possible, one of an opinion journalist’s most basic duties is to understand and convey the perspectives of people with whom he or she disagrees. Basham fails to do this in her book—and that leads her to get a whole host of basic facts wrong. It’s worth asking: If we can’t trust her with the basic facts, why should we trust her with the interpretation of these facts?

None of the people I spoke with who were mentioned in the book (nearly a dozen for this article) had been contacted either by Basham or by fact checkers from HarperCollins or its imprint Broadside Books, the book’s publisher. Such fact checking is a common practice to avoid legal liability, but it’s particularly puzzling considering several of the people Basham criticizes have themselves published books with HarperCollins or its subsidiaries. I made multiple interview requests to both Basham and HarperCollins for this piece, but I received no response. Now, Basham and her publisher are discovering that the fact-checking work is being done for them online by Ben Marsh , Gavin Ortlund (who posted a video highlighting errors in a section devoted to him), Samuel James ( in an excellent review ), and others .

Below are a few more examples I’ve found in my own reporting of Basham misleadingly shaping her reporting to support Shepherds for Sale ’s true narrative: that Christians who don’t support Donald Trump have lost their way.

Christianity Today and Russell Moore

The evangelical magazine Christianity Today ( CT ) and its editors are among the most central villains of Basham’s narrative. People associated with CT are mentioned no fewer than 50 times—virtually always in a negative light. Two examples are illustrative. 

In October 2023, Basham did reporting for The Daily Wire that she highlighted again in Shepherds for Sale . From the book:

Five different editors at Christianity Today contributed to Democrats (and only Democrats) between 2015 and 2022, including news editor Daniel Silliman. He gave to five different pro-abortion candidates, among them, Elizabeth Warren, who is so committed to the cause of death that she has pushed to shut down all crisis pregnancy centers across the country.

This is a troubling accusation, and one that could lead readers to have understandable concerns about whether Christianity Today has a hidden bias. When Basham published her findings in The Daily Wire , I publicly commended her for uncovering the details. 

CT President Tim Dalrymple—one of the people singled out by Basham for donating to Democratic candidates—agreed with that assessment in an interview with me at the time. “We should have a clause prohibiting political donations from our journalists,” he said. “We agree. Full stop.” Christianity Today confirmed to me that it has since implemented policies to prohibit such contributions.

But when Basham published her findings about CT , I did a similar public records search and discovered that during that same period, Daily Wire employees made 46 political contributions , with 22 of those contributions going to Democrats. In fairness, most of these contributions were small, and most were made by staffers not on the editorial team. (That is also true of the Christianity Today employee contributions.) But according to the Society of Professional Journalists “almost no political activity is OK.”

This additional context— CT ’s commitment to change its policy and the data about Daily Wire staffers’ own contributions—is conspicuously absent from Shepherds for Sale , but not for a lack of awareness on Basham’s part. How do I know? Because after I published this information at MinistryWatch , she blocked me on Twitter. Details that didn’t fit her preconceived narrative about Christianity Today were intentionally omitted.

Nowhere was this more obvious than in her criticism of Russell Moore (now CT ’s editor-in-chief), whom she accused of being missing in action following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade . The obvious implication, in Basham’s view, is that Moore had gone soft on the issue.

“For weeks after the most important legal decision pro-life Christians would see in their lifetimes, he published no essays, recorded no episode for his podcast, posted nothing on social media,” Basham writes.

Moore has been one of the nation’s most vigorous pro-life advocates for decades. During his tenure as president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), he led the Evangelicals For Life group. By the time of the Dobbs decision, he had become the director of the Public Theology Project at Christianity Today .

So why was he silent in those fateful weeks during the summer of 2022? Was he secretly disappointed by the court’s decision? Downplaying his beliefs for his new audience? No, he was traveling in Europe and intentionally off the grid with his family, in part to unplug from American politics and social media. His first newsletter for CT upon returning addressed the Dobbs decision and what would come next for pro-lifers. He also addressed the life issue, affirming its centrality to a biblical worldview here and here .

The Trinity Forum

One anecdote early in the book involves the Trinity Forum, a sort of Christian think tank founded by theologian and writer Os Guinness and now led by Cherie Harder. 

Basham describes the preparations for a 2008 debate Trinity Forum Europe wanted to host with atheist Christopher Hitchens, but according to Harder, her retelling is wrong in almost every particular. Basham writes that the Trinity Forum rejected a recommendation made by apologist Larry Taunton—who has since become an avid supporter of Donald Trump—for who should serve as an interlocutor for Hitchens, because Taunton’s recommendation was “‘too evangelical’—which for the new Trinity meant ‘unsophisticated.’”

Not so, says Harder. The organization’s original choice, apologist John Lennox, “was also a Trinity Forum Senior Fellow—so there was no need to solicit Taunton’s help in securing Lennox as a speaker.” Did Basham reach out to Harder to double-check her reporting? “I’ve never met or talked with Megan Basham,” Harder told me. “She did not interview me or attempt to do so before writing about me and Trinity Forum.”

But beyond basic factual problems—which Basham uses to imply the Trinity Forum really wanted the praise of certain “social elites” instead of conducting a serious debate with Hitchens— Shepherds for Sale suggests that under Harder’s leadership, the organization departed from the original vision of Os Guinness:

Since he stepped down [from The Trinity Forum], Guinness, for his part, has carved out a very different position from that of Trinity Forum. During a recent podcast interview, he said that Christians who buy the line, oft peddled by Christianity Today and current Trinity Forum fellows, that to be faithful believers means “keeping their heads down” as the early Christians did under Rome are “dead wrong.”  “The early church were faithful, yes,” he said, “but they were under an imperial dictatorship. … [We] are in a Republic, where every citizen is responsible for the health and vitality of the Republic.” Guinness added that not to contend for God’s laws in the political sphere would be a “failure of citizenship.”

Here’s the problem: In an interview for this review, Guinness told me the precise words Basham quoted from him are indeed accurate, but taken out of context; he was not referring to either Christianity Today or the Trinity Forum. “That’s absolutely wrong,” he told me. “I was talking about evangelicals who were not voting. I was not talking about the Trinity Forum.” 

Marvin Olasky and World Magazine

Another recurring villain in Shepherds For Sale is Marvin Olasky, the former editor-in-chief of World magazine. At one point, Basham references a 2019 editorial meeting involving her former boss, whom she describes as someone who “had always discussed abortion as our nation’s greatest moral evil. He’d always been clear that he felt it was among the most important factors (if not the most important) when weighing one’s choice in political representatives.”

Yet, there he was, in late 2019, telling his team of reporters that there might be more important ways for voters to promote pro-life policies than simply electing politicians who promised to restrict or end abortion. One might decide that the best way to vote for life would be to select a candidate whose official platform was pro-abortion but who supported subsidizing day care or paid family leave, making children more appealing.  This was a man who’d previously championed [Thomas] Sowell and advocated for personal responsibility and free markets. In more ways than one, I could not believe what I was hearing. Olasky finished this soliloquy with a little snicker about the lack of political sophistication in theologian R. C. Sproul’s famous pronouncement that he would “never vote for a candidate for any office, including dogcatcher, who is pro-abortion.”  Apparently, at some point after the election of Trump, Olasky had decided this sentiment was worthy of light mockery.

I’ve known Olasky for 30 years and—while a reporter for World —I participated in at least 100 bi-weekly editorial calls and several leadership and editorial staff retreats. Basham’s account immediately jumped out to me as grossly misrepresenting Olasky’s position on the life issue, his approach to journalism, and his approach to editorial meetings, which, in addition to being off-the-record (a fact Basham ignored), he often viewed as teaching opportunities. Olasky would regularly articulate hypothetical or even contrary positions in these meetings, encouraging reporters to look at all sides of an issue while working on their stories. 

It’s worth noting that none of Olasky’s words in this section are in quotation marks, meaning this story is, at best, a paraphrase from Basham’s memory. If she had quoted what he actually said, in context, her argument would likely evaporate.

Unlike Basham and HarperCollins, I did reach out to Olasky and asked him if this account was accurate. He said: 

For 40 years I’ve been saying and writing that politics is important, but culture is more important. I’ve never thought that “simply electing politicians” is enough. Compassionate pregnancy resource centers are important: my wife started one in 1984 and I chaired it for a while. Adoption is important. Showing ultrasound images is important. Megan is inaccurate if she’s saying I wanted to turn away from a prolife position. Trying to think the best of her, maybe she’s recalling a discussion of whether a Christian could ever vote for a Democrat. (One of our board members told me a Christian could never do that). If the discussion occurred at the editorial retreat, we were probably discussing our news coverage of the 2020 election, which meant taking seriously the views of evangelicals on both sides of the political divide.

Olasky added: “I had (and have) great respect for R. C. Sproul and have no recollection of ever mocking him or having ‘a little snicker’ at his expense.”

Francis Collins and COVID-19

Former National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins is—by my count—mentioned in Shepherds for Sale more than any other person. One grievance in particular is both factually inaccurate and—more to the point—reveals the book’s true agenda.

Referring to a podcast in late 2020 hosted by theologian Ed Stetzer and featuring Collins, Basham writes about an effort the two were leading to engage evangelical churches in fighting COVID-19:

Stetzer’s efforts to help further the NIH’s preferred coronavirus narratives went well beyond giving Collins a softball venue to rally pastors to his cause. He ended the podcast by announcing that the Billy Graham Center [which Stetzer led at the time] would be officially partnering with the Biden administration. Together, with the NIH and the CDC, it would launch a website, Coronavirus and the Church, to provide clergy with resources they should then convey to their congregations.

The insinuation is that Stetzer and Collins sold out to President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. Indeed, many of her criticisms—of Stetzer, Collins, and others—seem to have political gamesmanship at their core. 

But in this case, too, the facts tell a different story. As Basham could have discovered with a simple Google search, the Coronavirus and the Church website launched in March 2020 , while Trump was still president. The first of two podcasts Stetzer did with Collins also took place before Biden became president. This detail—that the website was actually a Trump administration initiative—did not fit the narrative Basham wanted to tell in her book, so it was simply omitted.

The Real Sins of These Shepherds

So why did Basham undertake this flawed effort to malign these particular Christians and portray them as villains?

Religion News Service wrote this about Moore when he resigned from the ERLC, and what is true for Moore is true for virtually all the “villains” in Shepherds for Sale :

Conservative, pro-life, anti-same-sex marriage, Moore was hardly a theological outlier among his fellow Southern Baptist leaders, yet his opposition to the candidacy of Donald Trump, whom Moore had once called “an arrogant huckster,” as well as his sympathy for immigrants and concern for the SBC’s sexual abuse victims, put him out of step with the SBC’s political culture.

Shepherds For Sale has many villains, but it has only one true hero: Donald J. Trump. He is mentioned more than 30 times in the book, all positively or defensively. “Thanks to the single-issue voters who cast ballots for Donald Trump, tens of thousands of babies are alive today who otherwise would have been fed to the abortion machine,” reads one explicit example. But, as I have written elsewhere , both funding for abortion and the number of abortions actually went up during Trump’s presidency.* Overturning Roe was a significant achievement of the Trump administration, but in 2023, a year after the Dobbs decision, the number of abortions topped 1 million —the most in a decade.

The real sin of those demonized by Basham is their public opposition to Trump. Her book purports to fight for the Gospel against heretics, but Basham is waging a proxy war, defending Trump against his evangelical critics, whom she labels the “elite evangelical figures who had proudly worn the ‘Never Trump’ moniker.”

Basham is correct when she writes that journalism can be part of the solution to problems in the church and the culture generally. Courageous, fact-based journalism could move the needle on some of the vexing problems of our time, including immigration and climate change, two issues Basham tackles in Shepherds for Sale . She is also right that the large institutions of the Evangelical Industrial Complex do not have the ability or the willingness to police themselves. As I have written elsewhere, “journalism can save the evangelical movement.”

But Shepherds For Sale is not journalism—it is propaganda. It is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

Correction, August 3, 2024: The article has been corrected to remove a phrase that said Megan Basham’s book ignores data on abortions that took place during the Trump administration. A paragraph in her book does address that issue.

Warren Cole Smith

Warren Cole Smith is the president of MinistryWatch.

Please note that we at  The Dispatch  hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.

See More on Christianity

Christian Nationalism’s Failure of Imagination

Cultural ‘Reactionaryism’ Is No Good News

Parallel Power Plays in Church and State

Will the RFK Endorsement Move the Needle?

A Christian Case for Criminal Justice Reform

The Imaginary Undecided Voter News Junkies

Josh Shapiro Plots a Course for His Political Future

Digital Liturgies

Review: "Shepherds for Sale," by Megan Basham

We ought not judge a book by its cover. Judging a book by its title, however, is a little different. A book’s title matters for more than grabbing the would-be reader’s attention or flashing a bit of memorable literary style. A book’s title tells you what the author is really saying. When the illustrations get fuzzy or the line of argument hard to follow, a good title can help you understand.

Megan Basham’s new book has a splendid title. Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda is clear, energetic, and memorable. It evokes intrigue, shock, disgust, and outrage. It suggests betrayal and treason. It promises not just a sermon, but an indictment.

This is the kind of book that will generate much discussion even among people who haven’t read it.  Basham, a veteran reporter of World Magazine now with The Daily Wire, has offered a far-reaching diagnosis of American conservative evangelicalism.

What it Gets Right

Perhaps it would be wise to begin by laying my cards on the table. When Basham talks about evangelical capitulation to progressivism, she regularly mentions people and institutions I recognize. For almost three years I worked directly for one of the most frequently mentioned people in the book, former Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president Russell Moore. I have friends and colleagues, past and present, who are subjects of this book.

Given that, readers may be surprised at how much of Shepherds for Sale I found true and important. The book is organized thematically, showing how certain evangelical leaders and institutions have promoted secular progressive ideology, either out of errant conviction or (worse) out of greed for the money and approbation of secularists. Basham covers a range of topics (environmentalism, race, abortion, Trump, COVID, and more), but the book usually stays focused on the evangelical landscape from about 2012 onward. This focus is both a weakness and a strength. I’ll address the weakness momentarily, but the strength of this relatively limited time frame is that Basham does capture an unusual moment in American evangelical life: A moment of simultaneous political transformation, social unrest, and theological tension. 

A paragraph in the introduction ably summarizes the weirdness:

[There] are ordinary Christians who feel confused and dismayed to see well-known pastors and ministry leaders letting the culture rather than Scripture dictate the content of their teaching. They see leaders insisting that Jesus requires them to get Covid-19 vaccinations and lobby for immigration bills, but doesn’t require them to speak clearly about sexual morality. They feel, frankly, like sheep without shepherds. What they all want to know: What is going on? Why is this happening everywhere ?

These are good questions. Basham is not hallucinating, because I’ve seen the same things. There really has been a warped understanding of biblical love and justice, one bent away from traditionally conservative views and toward what is profiled in American political history as “progressive.”

I’ve seen this in some of the topics Basham addresses. For example, on immigration, she’s right to challenge “neighbor love” as a sufficient framework for determining immigration policy, and she’s right that some rhetoric from prominent evangelical leaders has been sloganeering disguised as biblical insight.

I have seen the complex issues attending immigration policy carelessly conflated with racism. Some Christian institutions have failed to maturely navigate two connected but distinct issues: the biblical mandate to love those not like us, which American evangelicals like myself have frequently failed to do throughout our history, and the challenges facing pastors and churches related to shifting demographics. Some pastors and nonprofit leaders—and their followers, like me—have tried too hard to neatly synchronize the ethical and the political. As long as no one seriously disagrees, this can work relatively OK. But the problems become evident once Christians start disagreeing. Consciences are unjustly bound. Certain groups are talked down to. And believers can become willing to see their faith as merely a means to some pragmatic end.

Shepherds for Sale is strongest when it is not primarily concerned with people’s motivations when this happens, but the practical consequences. The chapter on Southern Baptists’ reckoning with abuse and #ChurchToo is a good example. Basham correctly points out that Christians who hold to a biblical view of sexual ethics must be able to interrogate any notion that a “power imbalance” between two sexually involved people nullifies the agency of the less powerful one. Her rebuke of how some prominent Southern Baptists have spoken about this issue rings true, and I receive it as someone who has used similarly confused categories before.

In my view, Southern Baptists are right to talk earnestly about the sin of sexual abuse in the church, and are right to invest resources in helping victims and churches resist. But Basham is simply correct that the standards of evidence most common in the #MeToo movement create more problems than they solve. And it’s true that many who lean more left on these questions tend to leave behind a trail of damage, in reckless disregard for careful fact finding.

I have seen this play out in real time. An allegation is made. The person alleging misconduct will set up the rules of pastoral care so that anything short of immediate side-taking is considered cruel and abusive. As I have written before, the current emphasis in left-of-center evangelicalism on therapeutic strategies for abuse prevention and care too often punts on crucial questions of accuracy and truth.

I believe some of the people Basham names in her chapter on church abuse would go back in time and do things differently if they could. An eagerness to look compassionate, to not enable wicked people, and to avoid situations like the Roman Catholic investigations in the early 2000s added up to shortsighted and harmful compromises.

Likewise with regard to COVID. The most convincing chapter in the book might be here, where Basham clearly has a lot of evidence in her case that evangelicals swallowed, uncritically, a politically convenient but ultimately false narrative on the pandemic. Once again, I was convicted by many things she points out, wishing I too could go back and do things differently. We all need the humility to recognize that it’s hard to know what we don’t know, particularly when an unprecedented situation occurs in a digital age like ours.

When Shepherds for Sale is right, it’s right.

Digital Liturgies is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What it Gets Wrong

Somewhere in the process of development, this book had something that would have been genuinely persuasive and effective. There’s a version of it that would have focused on evangelical consequences rather than evangelical motivations, and would have provided a perch for truth-conscious Christians, regardless of what presidential candidate they like, to reflect on lessons learned in a truly incredible decade.

Unfortunately, the book readers have is not that book. Instead, too often it’s a speculative jeremiad that substitutes insistence for proof and score-settling for reflection. The title expresses this: Shepherds for Sale . What the book wants to be is a devastating exposure of evangelical corruption and fraud. But there are too many factual errors, logical inconsistencies, unwarranted assumptions, and bad-faith interpretations for it to be that. Its usefulness is buried underneath a basic failure to be worthy of its own title.

Factual Errors

In chapter 1, on environmentalism, Basham’s main interlocutor is E. Calvin Beisner, a Christian theologian who advocates (as part of a fellowship called the Cornwall Alliance) for an emphasis on stewardship rather than “creation care.” Beisner is Basham’s main example of a truly conservative Christian voice on climate. After criticizing Southeastern Seminary for hosting a different Christian presenter on environmental science, Basham suggests that Southeastern would never ask someone like Beisner to come to campus. “When I asked Beisner if seminaries like SEBTS ever invite Cornwall Alliance climate scientists or theologians to present an argument . . . he was blunt. ‘No, they don’t.’” But according t o this SEBTS program page , Beisner did indeed participate (or was scheduled to) in a symposium at Southeastern in 2017. As of 2016, the Cornwall Alliance lists Daniel Heimbach as one of their fellows. Heimbach is a professor at Southeastern Seminary.

Elsewhere, Basham claims that then-SBC president J. D. Greear “made a heavy push to change the SBC’s name to ‘Great Commission Baptists’ as part of what the media called as a ‘racial reckoning.’” This is misleading at best. In fact, the SBC had itself decided several years prior to approve “Great Commission Baptists” as an optional alternate descriptor for those who would prefer to use it. In February 2012, a task force appointed by then-president Bryant Wright and chaired by former LifeWay president Jimmy Draper, made a recommendation that the SBC keep its legal name but adopt an informal name that churches could use if they so choose. The task force was made up of 20 individuals, including Albert Mohler.

In the chapter on immigration, Basham highlights a viral Breitbart report that purported to expose billionaire progressive George Soros as the decisive shadow money figure behind the Evangelical Immigration Table, a non-profit network that Richard Land led the ERLC to join in the early 2010s. Her money trail is complicated and sometimes difficult to follow, but Basham suggests plainly that the ERLC is being influenced by money coming from Soros. She writes:

[The EIT] made a particular target of the Southern Baptist Convention, highlighting how many Southern Baptist leaders had become involved with its work, including then-president J. D. Greear, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary president Danny Akin, North American Mission Board head Kevin Ezell, and “many others.” That’s to say nothing of the new leaders it recruited from the denomination, giving them plum jobs. However, questions from ordinary Southern Baptists (the people whose tithes support the denomination’s entities) about Soros funding continued to dog the EIT’s steps.

There are multiple claims in this chapter, one of which is true, one of which is false, and one of which is sheer speculation. The first claim is true: George Soros’s foundation does donate to the the National Immigration Foundation, which the EIT and ERLC both freely acknowledge . The second claim is that “rank and file” Southern Baptists are being misrepresented by their leaders on this issue. This is simply not true; the resolution that Basham mentions was passed overwhelmingly from the floor of the convention . The final claim is speculation; there is no reason to believe that Southern Baptist leaders are letting Soros or the NIF “set the agenda” for them, as Basham claims. The mere presence of the ERLC in the EIT is not proof, any more than the mere existence of Zip Recruiter on The Daily Wire’s corporate sponsors list implicates Basham in Ian Siegel’s politics.

In Chapter 4, Basham mischaracterizes an interview that Tim Keller gave Peter Wehner for The Atlantic .

An archived version of the interview can be found here . Here is Basham’s description:

Yet, while Keller argued that the Bible does not tell Christians how to oppose abortion, there was one way he clearly felt was wrong—by voting for Donald Trump. Being a Christian Trump supporter, he told The Atlantic , meant that you were focused on “power and saying, How are we going to use power to live life the way we want?”

She also writes:

Somehow, Keller found support for Donald Trump uniquely discrediting in a way that voting for Joe Biden—who had plenty of evangelical Democrats in his corner even though Biden had also been accused of sexual assault—was not.

The full context of Keller’s comments, though, do not come close to supporting this characterization. I should emphasize that Basham is careful to document her sources. The interview linked above is the interview she characterizes in the book. Below, I’ve reprinted the relevant excerpt, including its immediate surrounding context, which paints a very different picture:

I [Wehner] asked Keller about the relationship of the Church, and in particular evangelicalism, to politics. The upshot of Keller’s position is that whereas individual Christians should be engaged in the political realm, the Bible makes it impossible as a Church to hitch your wagon to one political party, especially in these times. “For Christians just to completely hook up with one party or another is really idolatry,” Keller said. “It’s also reducing the Gospel to a political agenda.” . . . When I pressed the point further, Keller admitted he believes that “most Christians are just nowhere nearly as deeply immersed in the scripture and in theology as they are in their respective social-media bubbles and News Feed bubbles. To be honest, I think the ‘woke’ evangelicals are just much more influenced by MSNBC and liberal Twitter. The conservative Christians are much more influenced by Fox News and their particular loops. And they’re [both] living in those things eight to 10 hours a day. They go to church once a week, and they’re just not immersed in the kind of biblical theological study that would nuance that stuff.” On Donald Trump, Keller said that unlike a generation ago, many evangelicals are not looking to put Christians into power in order to turn the culture back to God; now they are looking for a protector, a champion. “Both those evangelical strategies are wrong,” Keller told me. “Both of them are about power and saying, How are we going to use power to live life the way we want? They’re not enough about service; they’re not enough about serving the common good. “The proper cultural strategy is faithful presence within,” he added, “not pulling away from the culture, and not trying to take it over. ‘ Faithful presence within ’ means being faithful; it means we’re not going to assimilate, [but] we’re going to be distinctively Christian. It’s about an attitude of service, uncompromising in our beliefs, but not withdrawing and not trying to dominate.”

Nowhere in this interview does Keller say that voting for Trump is “discrediting,” and nowhere does he imply that voting for a Democrat is better.

Basham further claims in the section that she could find “no public comments from Keller chiding Christians who supported Biden or rebuking groups like ‘evangelicals for Biden’ for politicizing the Church.’” This is a strange comment, since in the very interview she references, Keller clearly speaks negatively of “MSNBC and liberal Twitter.”

In the same chapter, Basham again misrepresents a Keller statement, this time a piece authored by him in The New Yorker . She accuses Keller of “slighting” and “denigrating” Christians who voted for Trump. She quotes Keller as saying that “‘evangelical’ used to denote people who claimed the moral high ground; now, in popular usage, the word nearly synonymous with ‘hypocrite.’”

Yet the piece she cites does not say anything about Christians who voted for Trump. Instead, Keller is writing about the definition of the word “evangelical,” and the difference between how theologically-minded Christians identify themselves with how political pollsters identify them. In the essay to which Basham refers, Keller refers readers to David Bebbington’s classic criteria of historic evangelical Christianity , with no reference to Trump or the Democratic Party. Keller writes:

Do the self-identified white “big-E Evangelicals” of the pollsters hold to these [Bebbington-defined] beliefs? Recent studies indicate that many do not. In many parts of the country, Evangelicalism serves as the civil or folk religion accepted by default as part of one’s social and political identity. So, in many cases, it means that the political is more defining than theological beliefs, which has not been the case historically. And, because of the enormous amount of attention the media pays to the Evangelical vote, the term now has a decisively political meaning in popular usage. Yet there exists a far larger evangelicalism, both here and around the world, which is not politically aligned. In the U.S., there are millions of evangelicals spread throughout mainline Protestant congregations, as well as in more theologically conservative denominations like the Assemblies of God, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. But, most significantly, the vast majority of the fast-growing Protestant churches in Asia, Latin America, and Africa all share these same beliefs. And in the U.S., while white Evangelicalism is aging and declining, evangelicalism over all is not.

I am sorry to post a tiresome series of blockquotes. My point in doing so is twofold. First, as a journalist like Basham can appreciate, I am simply offering a fact check to some, at best, highly questionable “facts.” But second, I want to point out that, of the many names criticized in Basham’s book, Keller seems to be the one depicted most inaccurately.

This doesn’t make Keller’s political views or his evangelistic method infallible. Many people who love and are grateful for Keller’s ministry will nevertheless express disagreement at his political opinions and advice. But there’s a difference between criticizing Keller (or anyone else) on the basis of what he said and believed, and criticizing him based on inaccurate summaries of his statements and unnecessary inferences.

My impression is that Basham has read her own political motivations back onto Keller, and it has led her to hear things he didn’t say and see things he didn’t write. This is a serious issue. It compromises the book’s claim to actuality and trustworthiness. It opens the question of what other evangelical figures may be inaccurately represented in Shepherds for Sale . And it comes dangerously close to a violation of the Ninth Commandment.

Selective Outrage

The problems go beyond factual discrepancies. Shepherds for Sale frequently reads into the hidden motivations of Christians with whom Basham disagrees. Again, the title captures the main allegation. Basham is trying to convince her readers not just that their teachers and leaders have different views, but that these views have been bought and paid for in a terribly cynical way. But this is predominantly something Basham insists upon rather than proves.

This raises a crucial point: How do we know what Basham is describing is a matter of evangelical betrayal, rather than simply honest convictions of some versus honest convictions of others? In her introduction, Basham opens the door to the possibility that Christians can genuinely disagree politically:

This is not to say that Christians can’t have disagreements on whether science proves climate change is a serious problem or what gun regulations might be prudent. Even where Christians agree on principle, reason and conviction can lead to different views regarding solutions.

The problem is that Basham doesn’t at all demonstrate what this might look like. She categorically rules out almost every political position to the left of Donald Trump as liberal progressivism, which “rank and file” Christians are having hoisted on them by corrupt leaders.

This narrative struggles to hold when history is taken into fuller account. For example, one of Basham’s clearest allegations that Russell Moore, in his tenure at the ERLC, was responsible for teaching and advocacy on issues like immigration and environmentalism that contradicted the conservative convictions of the “rank and file” SBC. She depicts this transformation of Southern Baptists’ public policy agency as occurring relatively quickly under Moore, aided by friends such as J. D. Greear.

However, one figure that does not receive any criticism whatsoever in Shepherds for Sale is Russell Moore’s predecessor at the ERLC, Richard Land. It was Land who pioneered SBC efforts through the ERLC to advocate for these issues. Basham only once names Land, passingly, even though it was Land  leading Southern Baptists in “creation care” efforts , or testifying before Congress that Southern Baptists favor a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens. Basham portrays both positions as extreme, anti-Baptist ideologies that people like Russell Moore bear responsibility for pushing. But the broad support that Land’s ERLC enjoyed among Southern Baptists paints a very different picture, as does his ongoing reputation as a conservative elder statesman in the denomination.

Similarly, Basham applies a strict standard that cannot be applied to herself. She blisteringly criticizes both the Evangelical Immigration Table and the National Immigration Forum as left-wing entities that are using money to seduce evangelical communities into progressive error. But in 2019, while Basham was employed at World Magazine , the publication ran an article that positively characterized both the EIT and NIF. Of course, it’s entirely possible that Basham objected to her employer running such an article. The point is that by the standards she holds others to, she was part of an effort to deceive Christians. Using Basham’s own logic, we could justly say that in 2019 Basham was personally profiting from progressive-aligned work. There is no apology from her in the book for not protesting publicly.

Meanwhile, Basham currently works for The Daily Wire . One of their top leaders is Andrew Klavan, a conservative writer who nonetheless supports same-sex marriage and attended the wedding of his gay son. Again, if we apply the standard that Basham employs throughout Shepherds for Sale , we would be forced to conclude that Basham herself has been compromised by error and is aligning with enemies of Christianity.

All of these examples demonstrate a selectivity to Basham’s thesis that undermines it. The book claims that “rank and file” evangelicals are uniformly offended by policies that it turns out they often support. The book claims that a handful of evangelical leaders are subversive operatives trying to liberalize American churches, but these motives don’t apply to other conservatives with the same views but different affiliations. The book claims that Christian leaders have a positive duty not to partner or take money from groups that oppose conservative policy, but this burden fails to land on the author.

Megan Basham knows her way around the evangelical world. She’s a gifted narrator. She lands some real broadsides. At its best, Shepherds for Sale is a spirited rebuke to a kind of high-minded self-delusion in certain parts of evangelicalism. It vividly revisits evangelical culture c. 2018-2020 and tours some genuine failures of nerve and conviction. If this book were titled When Shepherds Fail , it would get closer to the truth.

But titles are important. According to the book’s actual title, the situation is worse than self-delusion or failure. According to the title, shepherds are for sale. According to the title, Christian leaders around the world are being bought off by the enemies of Jesus. This is not what the book actually delivers.

Basham has written instead a  sometimes convicting, frequently speculative, and ultimately unremarkable book about evangelical disagreement.  In the end, the title Shepherds for Sale describes not so much facts that Basham has discovered, but a standard against which she evaluates Christians outside of her own political tribe. And it’s a standard that her own work does not hold up well against.

Should we conclude that the errors, mischaracterizations, and inconsistencies in Shepherds for Sale are intentional lies in order to sway readers and enrich the author? Or, could they be honest errors due to carelessness, or a difference of interpretation, or perhaps even something Basham would do differently given the chance?

It seems to me that the weight of the New Testament’s teaching would have Christians regularly (thought not exclusively) assuming the latter. This doesn’t rule out the possibility of heresy, or bribery, or capitulation. These things are real, and evangelicals have to reckon with them in every generation. But the question that remains is what kind of standard can be consistently applied to everyone in a way that most gets at the truth and honors God. The standard at work in Shepherds for Sale will not work, because it cannot even apply consistently to itself.

There is much in evangelicalism that needs course correction. There is much repentance and discipleship needed. There is much political literacy yet to be attained. As we see in a mirror dimly, we should be quick to admit when we get it wrong, quick to forgive when others wrong us, and slow to assume the best of ourselves. Shepherds for Sale contains good, hard questions, but not enough reliable answers.

Thank you for reading Digital Liturgies. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ready for more?

JOIN US MAY 20-21 FOR RESTORE CONFERENCE

Restore conference, june 9-10, 2023 | elgin, il.

Mary DeMuth

Scot McKnight

Naghmeh Panahi

Reporting the Truth. Restoring the Church.

Christian Leaders & Journalists Decry ‘Shepherds for Sale’ as Misleading, Inaccurate, and Unethical

• August 17, 2024
• 9:25 am CDT
• 78 Comments

A book that purports to show how “evangelical leaders traded the truth for a leftist agenda” has become a best-seller. It’s also become a target, as several Christian leaders profiled in Megan Basham’s book Shepherds for Sale claim it misstated facts and failed to provide essential context. And reporters, including the Texas Tribune ’s Robert Downen, allege Basham violated the “ most basic journalism ethics ,” by outing a sexual abuse survivor without her consent.

Conservative commentator Janet Mefferd went so far as to urge Harper Collins to pull the book , after prominent pastor and former Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) President J.D. Greear refuted the book’s claims about him.

“I can’t see how she can possibly keep wiggling her way out of her own reporting failures,” Mefferd posted on X. “Just devastating. Pull the book, @HarperCollins – enough is enough!”

The controversial book, published by HarperCollins’ imprint Broadside Books, premiered at number 12 on the New York Times ’ Combined Print & E-Book Nonfiction Best-sellers List last week. Basham states the book’s premise in the introduction, writing, “Once-trusted evangelical leaders and institutions have yoked themselves to left-wing billionaires and their pet projects.” 

Some, like Christian apologist Frank Turek praised Shepherds for Sale , saying it “blows the lid off why leaders may be straying from the word of God—for money, power, or some combination thereof.”

Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Disarming Leviathan” by Caleb Campbell. To donate, click here .

Similarly, Reformed writer Samuel James called it “a spirited rebuke to a kind of high-minded self-delusion in certain parts of evangelicalism.” But, he added, “ Shepherds for Sale contains good, hard questions, but not enough reliable answers.”

In statements to The Roys Report (TRR) , nearly a dozen well-known Christian leaders critiqued in the book say Basham never contacted them to address her published claims. They include online apologist Gavin Ortlund—cited over 20 times in the book—former World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky, The Trinity Forum president Cherie Harder, and Holy Post podcaster Phil Vischer.

‘Not me. Not my voice.’

Basham mentions Vischer in the book’s introduction, stating, “When the guy who created the Christian children’s program VeggieTales starts arguing that evangelicals should take a more ‘nuanced’ position on abortion . . . something is badly off in mainstream evangelicalism.” 

Vischer responded in a thread on X,  writing  in part, “I was curious what talk I gave that she was referring to, so I followed her footnotes. She refers to a video discussing the best ways to reduce abortion— that I didn’t write, nor did I deliver. Not my words, not my face.” 

Basham responded to Vischer, in a since-deleted  post on X , “You guys are ridiculous. And what you’re doing is obvious. I am done with your nonsense.” 

Others online pointed to X posts by Vischer that seemed to be saying essentially what Basham accused him of saying.

However, Mefferd replied to Basham’s defenders : “If you cite a footnote for a claim, but the footnote does not prove the claim, then you have committed a citation error. Citation errors are bad. They can destroy your credibility as a writer. And saying, ‘he said it somewhere else, though!’ doesn’t save you.”

Gavin Ortlund and climate change

Another Christian leader caught in Basham’s crosshairs is Gavin Ortlund. In her book’s first chapter, she confronts Ortlund’s view on climate change, which was expressed in a March 2022 video .

In the video, Ortlund urged Christians to engage with the evidence on this issue and addressed what some refer to as “scientific consensus” on the issue.

Basham writes, “To not accept that consensus, he says, is to buy into ‘conspiracy and hoax,’ it is a failure to ‘take a responsible posture’ as a Christian.” 

However, in a recent video, Ortlund documented how Basham’s summary was pieced together from phrases he uttered six minutes apart in his 2022 video, “concocting her own sentence and placing it in my mouth.”

“What Megan is doing is she’s plucking little snippets out here—sometimes not even plucking out, just completely projecting things onto me—that fit the narrative, and then leaving everything out that doesn’t fit the narrative,” Ortlund said.

TRR reached out to Basham multiple times with specific requests for comment but did not receive a response. 

However, Basham responded to Ortlund’s objections last week, in a video interview .

“It was a little ridiculous to suggest that that was something unique to me,” she said regarding the quote. “I understand that he objects to me just taking a couple of phrases. But, when you look at the totality of the video, I don’t know how you could come to any other conclusion.”

J.D. Greer claims Basham’s reporting is ‘demonstrably untrue’

On Monday, J.D. Greear, pastor of The Summit Church in Durham, North Carolina, published a 10,000-word response to Shepherds for Sale . Greear, who is mentioned by name over 75 times in the book, claimed Basham’s reporting is “in many places, demonstrably untrue.” 

Greear objected to the book’s recounting of his sermons and public statements on race issues, LGBTQ inclusion, immigration, and other topics—sometimes implying his involvement. For example, in a section that quotes Greear on standing against racism, the book mentions the renaming of schools and tearing down of monuments.

“I didn’t participate in any of the social activism surrounding statue removal or the renaming of schools,” wrote Greear, adding he “never addressed” these issues in the pulpit or another context.

He concludes, “Basham’s book is, sadly, a product of our times. She exemplifies the tendency to respond to anyone outside of our tribes with bad-faith, cherry-picking hostility.”

In a lengthy X thread later published on ClearTruthMedia, Basham responded that her mention of schools renamed and statutes removed was ”important to show how his preoccupations paralleled those that were dominating academic, entertainment, and corporate culture at the time.”

She concluded: “With the exception of whether comments Greear made came from a February or June 2021 sermon (and I will check this and correct if necessary), nothing Greear brought forth is an error.” 

Alleged abuse survivor ‘outed’ in Basham’s book

Perhaps generating the most outrage from Basham’s book was her decision to name an alleged survivor who claimed former SBC President Johnny Hunt sexually assaulted her in July 2010.

Robert Downen, who reported the woman’s story for the Houston Chronicle , posted on X that he “worked with that woman and her husband for MONTHS before they would let me tell their story, and only with a ton of assurances that we would do everything possible to protect their identities. Meg outed them after finding a court doc that was accidentally filed w/o redactions.”

He adds, “I can’t think of a single journalistic reason to have done so.”

I worked with that woman and her husband for MONTHS before they would let me tell their story, and only with a ton of assurances that we would do everything possible to protect their identities. Meg outed them after finding a court doc that was accidentally filed w/o redactions. — Robert Downen (@RobertDownen_) August 8, 2024

Basham acknowledges in her book that she found the woman’s name in a court document that the woman’s lawyer had failed to redact. (This has since been corrected.)

On August 6, Basham responded on X that the woman and her husband “were outed by their lawyers, not me.”

She added, “I do think when you make public accusations (especially when you aren’t willing to take them to actual authorities like the police or a court) you should be obligated to stand behind them.”

Many online accused Basham of violating The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics . It states that reporters should “minimize harm” in their work. And it notes that journalists should “recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish.”

Longtime abuse survivor advocate Christa Brown, who has sought for the SBC to adopt stronger safety policies in churches, told TRR she considered Basham’s disclosure “an act of pure cruelty” to the alleged victim.

“There is no ethical universe in which it is okay to publicly name an alleged survivor of sexual abuse without that person’s express permission,” said Brown. “So, the book is outside the bounds of an ethical universe, and in my view, it’s also outside the bounds of kindness, compassion, and human decency.”

In addition to requesting Basham’s comment on this disclosure, TRR repeatedly reached out to HarperCollins for comment on this issue but did not receive a response. 

Political money from the left scrutinized—what about the right?

Karen Swallow Prior, a longtime Christian academic, commented on the book’s seeming double standard—a focus on a “leftist agenda” seeping into churches without similar scrutiny of well-funded right-wing agendas.

“Inasmuch as money is at the root of the leftward turn, it is also at the root of the rightward turn,” Prior told TRR . “Just look at start-up and ongoing funding of Basham’s employer, The Daily Wire, and certain Christian media outlets.” 

Warren Cole Smith, president of MinistryWatch, analyzed this issue in his review of Shepherds for Sale for The Dispatch.

“The rise of such organizations as Turning Point USA (and its subsidiary Turning Point Faith), the Epoch Times, and The Daily Wire itself—organizations that combined bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue—bear witness to the financial benefits of pandering to populists,” he writes. 

Calling the book a “flawed effort to malign particular Christians,” Smith sums up his thesis.

“ Shepherds For Sale has many villains, but it has only one true hero: Donald J. Trump. He is mentioned more than 30 times in the book, all positively or defensively . . . The real sin of those demonized by Basham is their public opposition to Trump.”

Christian academic, historian claim their views misrepresented

Known for her pro-life advocacy dating back decades, including over 15 years of involvement at a local pregnancy center as a volunteer and board member, Prior is cited over 30 times in Basham’s book. Notably, Prior’s op-eds and public stance opposing Trump are scrutinized, without mention of her pro-life op-eds in publications such as Vox . 

In a chapter covering Prior, Basham also critiques New York Times opinion writer David French for “savaging his fellow Christians for making a pro-life devil’s bargain in voting for Trump.” 

Basham noted how, led by Trump-appointed Supreme Court judges, Roe v. Wade was overturned in the Dobbs court decision. Basham concluded: “Rather than consider this, French joined Prior in insisting that any lives saved weren’t worth it.” 

In a statement to TRR , Prior responded: “The record of my life, writing, and work demonstrates how much I value saving lives. I couldn’t begin to explain such a conclusion.” 

Similarly, Jemar Tisby, a Ph.D. historian who often educates evangelicals on racial justice issues, told TRR that his views were “mischaracterized and misrepresented” in the book.

Basham’s former boss on the book’s political slant

Olasky, who hired Basham in 2011 to review movies for World Magazine , is mentioned a half-dozen times in Basham’s book, but also was not contacted by the author.

He demurred when asked for an analysis of the book as journalism. “She wasn’t a  World  reporter,” he told  TRR.  “She wasn’t part of our biweekly reporter phone calls where we emphasized fact-checking and giving people the opportunity to respond to criticism. I could go point by point about her errors but prefer to remember her as a good movie reviewer.” 

Citing how the book seeks to malign several public figures he considers as friends, Olasky said Basham’s approach makes “political disagreements become moral indictments.” 

“I know David (French) and Karen (Swallow Prior), knew Tim (Keller), and have interviewed them all at length,” said Olasky. “They’re not shepherds for sale. They’re shepherds who, like another David 3,000 years ago, have fought lions and bears.”

Alleged errors and mischaracterization in financial analysis  

In some sections, Shepherds for Sale takes a “literal” approach to its title, citing liberal and public funding for evangelical groups.

However, some groups profiled say certain figures in the book are inaccurate. For example, Basham claims that in 2018, “World Relief received $215.3 million from taxpayers for administering federal refugee grants.”

In a statement to TRR , a representative of World Relief called this “dramatically inaccurate” and stated that the actual figure received was “less than one-tenth” of what Basham claimed.

“As our publicly available IRS-990 forms and audited financial statements demonstrate , our total organizational revenue in 2018 was only about 30% of the $215.3 million that Ms. Basham inaccurately alleges World Relief received from the federal government for the refugee resettlement program ‘in 2018 alone,’” World Relief told TRR . 

Regarding other claims that Shepherds for Sale makes about World Relief, the humanitarian group provided a 1,500-word statement to TRR . These include disputing that its guiding principles on immigration are out of step with evangelicals (citing a Lifeway Research survey ) and rejecting any advocacy for “open borders” despite the book’s claims.

Another of Basham’s targets, mentioned over 20 times in multiple chapters, is The Trinity Forum, an evangelical-based nonprofit that is part think tank, part public apologetics ministry. Basham claims that a left-leaning foundation, Democracy Fund, gave Trinity Forum “nearly four hundred thousand dollars to ‘research the role of Christian leaders in public life.’”

Cherie Harder, the group’s president who is cited twice, said Basham never contacted her. Harder told TRR that the Democracy Fund was a bipartisan organization when it gave Trinity Forum $360,000. 

Harder added that Basham insinuates that Trinity Forum no longer receives most of its funding from donors and now is largely funded by large foundations.

“This is demonstrably false,” Harder said. “Over the last five years, less than 18% of our total funding has come from competitive foundations.” 

According to Trinity Forum’s website , nearly 70% of its funding from 2109—2023 came from individual donors. 

A third group, Redeeming Babel, whose study curriculum, The After Party , objected to how the book characterizes its funding and purpose. Executive Director Curtis Chang told TRR the book contains “inaccuracies and misleading insinuations.” He provided a response to questions and analysis of the book’s dozen mentions of The After Party .  

Will best-selling book be updated with corrections? 

Smith, who was Basham’s former colleague at World Magazine , cited in his review several specific omissions of context that he considered “factual errors.”

For example, Basham noted in her book that several reporters at Christianity Today (CT) had donated to Democrats. Yet Basham omitted that CT had since instituted a policy of prohibiting its reporters from donating to any political candidates.

Smith also reached out to well-respected author Os Guinness, founder of The Trinity Forum, who said Basham had used a quote of his that was “absolutely wrong.”

Basham did not respond to her errors noted in Smith’s article, but instead pointed out an error Smith had made. “He claims I did not deal with abortion rates going up under Trump. Here is where I do, right there in my chapter on the pro-life movement,” she posted on X. 

Within 24 hours of the review’s publication, Smith and The Dispatch corrected one paragraph and included a correction note per journalistic standards.

“I regret that error, but I also note that we made the correction quickly and in a transparent manner,” Smith told TRR . 

Basham also announced that Guinness had endorsed her book. He stated in part, “Some will quibble over details, but no one should miss the powerful warning in this book.”

Prior reacted to Guinness’ widely-shared quote.

“It is not quibbling to debate the reliability of the evidence,” she said. “The book’s thesis is one arrived at through inductive reasoning. The weight of any claim based on inductive reasoning depends entirely on the evidence and therefore on the accuracy with which that evidence is presented.”

As to Smith, he pointed to the lack of response from the publisher or author to his evidence.

“The most telling response has been the utter failure of HarperCollins and Megan Basham to acknowledge the clearly documented factual errors,” he added. “HarperCollins has so far been silent, and Megan has resorted to ad hominem arguments, obfuscation, deflection, or denial.”

Correction 8/18: This article has been updated to accurately state the location of The Summit Church. We regret the error.

GET EMAIL UPDATES!

Keep in touch with Julie and get updates in your inbox!

Don’t worry we won’t spam you.

Basham’s Book Claims Protecting Children in Churches Is ‘Uncontroversial.’ As an Abuse Survivor, I Beg to Differ

(Opinion) As a survivor who has spoken out on the sexual abuse crisis in evangelical churches, several parts of Megan Basham’s book Shepherds

Robert Morris & the Selective Outrage of John MacArthur Defenders

(Opinion)—Gateway Church Pastor Robert Morris has been exposed as an alleged child molester and defenders of John MacArthur are outraged. “If parents

Salem Media Pulls Election Conspiracy Film ‘2000 Mules’ from All Platforms

Salem Media Group, the largest U.S. radio company providing Christian and conservative programming, is removing the book and film “2,000 Mules” from

78 Responses

I can not judge motives. Yet many comments like this, “I usually like to read a book in its entirety before commenting. But I don’t want to give Basham the attention (and money) she clearly wants. She knows what she’s doing.” Are picturesque of the postmodern “church”. Which is why I wonder how many people who comment on this page are in Christ or actually read the Bible. Commentary rooted in deep affection and have had years of rightly dividing the Word. Clearly it is an issue because these comments judge the motives of the author. “ and money) she clearly wants”- Maybe judge the content of the author by truth. Hopefully this book opens dialogue about God’s precious church. There definitely is two different gospel approaching this topic. Biblical Christianity and those who do not believe in the authority of scripture. Thereby deducing actual content vs the motive of the author or the individuals the author writes about.

Jason – as the comment came from me, I will explain my stance on not reading this book: Upon hearing about the controversy, I went to Basham’s page to read her bio and responses to the criticism she has faced, with a plan to buy the book. However, what I saw is ZERO humility, apology, or concern for how Basham’s errors are misrepresenting and can cause harm to others (she even mocks David French and promotes disrespect of him and his work ). There are posts where Basham justifies cutting journalistic corners, explaining with “BUT”, which is a sign of someone who just wants to be right even when exposed as wrong. It’s like an apology with “if I hurt you” in front of it – it’s FAKE. Furthermore, Basham’s additional online activity includes promoting half truths (the DNC is NOT providing abortions at the convention), and liking and retweeting posts that question the faith and/or name call those who disagree with her. THAT tells me all I need to know. So YES, I did look at Basham’s ability to tell and promote truth through her online behavior about the book, the church, and politicis, and it removed all interest I have in reading her book. That does NOT make me Biblically illiterate. It means I expect more of a Bible-believing Christian; perhaps you should question if SHE has read the Bible.

Marin, So a few responses. I believe in facts. Also deductive logic. First you misrepresented her tweet. Obviously, like her book you did not read her statement. Misrepresenting the statement. She did not attribute the Abortions being provided by the DNC. However, the abortion pill is being provided by Unplanned Parenthood. Never understood why it was called planned. Just walking distance from the DNC you can get the abortion pill. For ummmm… Ya an abortion. Please read what she did say. This proves my observation of judging motives. Unplanned Parenthood is loved by the left more than the right. I wish it would cease to exist. I was at the rally. I saw the little mobile clinic.

Jason – I read her statement AND the last YEAR of her tweets and found MANY problems with her replies to being called out for skirting around journalistic rules (for more than just this book), and her liking and retweeting inflammatory comments and half truths. Liking and retweeting is a great way to throw stones while appearing to have clean hands (which you have bought into by defending her retweeting a misleading half truth about abortions at the DNC, that INTENTIONALLY left out that PP is onsite, to make it seem as if abortions are sponsored or provided by the DNC). That is a manipulation demonstrating a lack of integrity for follows, likes, and clicks. Furthermore, the mobile clinic is NOT solely providing abortion pills (half truth). It is providing information about access to ALL related reproductive care, including birth control and pelvic exams.

When I was a grad student who had aged out of my parents’ health insurance, PP provided my annual pelvic exam, which revealed pre-cancerous cells and a mass that needed to be biopsied. For $10, PP got me the necessary treatment, AND access to birth control to manage excessive bleeding (a side effect) for $5/month. I am FOREVER grateful to PP, and I continue to support them to make sure other women can receive the same aid. It’s disappointing “Christians” would rather see it go under. Less than 5% of PP work goes towards abortions (which they don’t even provide in all states); AND they provide prenatal exams, birth control, sex health/ed classes, parenting classes, and the like.

What research have you done on PP? Your comments about it demonstrate a lot more “reading and repeating conservative talking points” than looking at the FACTS. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

When you defend an organization that eradication was one of its original premises and murdering children. Which by the way is one the main message of the Democratic Party. Their messaging mirrors each other. There was not Abortion medication and vasectomies promoted at the Republican convention. If you are objective. Then you know the DNC and Unplanned parenthood have the same messaging. I know that the abortion pill provision is not just coincidental during the DNC.

As for Megan Basham-You misrepresented her post and now you expect this platform to believe you will adequately represent her views? Versus looking at the nuanced perspectives of her tweets. To be fair, I knew absolutely nothing about her prior to this book. People are very nuanced. So I do not have the time nor care to read every tweet. You are now trying to change the subject to eclipse your misleading representation of Megan Basham’s tweets. Now you could have stated, “I believe this is what she meant. Or this is my opinion of what she’s really saying.” Then you have context that is profoundly subjective and that you are projecting.

As for my research. I have an M-DIV, D-Min and my ministry dissertation was how to minister to people who have lost children at birth or at a young age. Then, I was pushed to do a THD. (Doctor of Theology). Thus the focus of my dissertation was on a Biblical&Theological view of Babies that die at birth. Where do they go? I have years of research on planned parenthood. I would never had listed my credentials. But you asked.

And can you explain how justifying cutting corners, mocking and disrespecting David French, belittling those who disagree, posting and retweeting insults and the like is acceptable for a Bible-believing Christian? You are quick to question if people like me “have read the Bible”, but you don’t question if someone who behaves as Bashan has? Why? I really hope it’s not because of politics.

Marin- I read and reread David French’s article on being pro-life and voting for Kamala. I agree that the Republican Party has watered down their pro-life stance. Trump has as well. I’m not a Republican. But I found some of his points agreeable. I found it less than circumspect. His one example of the child tax credit as agreeable has roots in Trumps plan. I found the why and what in his perspective as less than convincing. In fact, I am more convinced by the counter after cogitation of his words. His statements are up for scrutiny. There is a difference between disagreement and “disrespecting”. As an example, I disagree with 1/2 of Julie’s articles. At times there are missing objective questions/subjective issues as well. I will not say she is unsaved/heretical. I disagree with some of her articles. Is that “disrespecting”? Or disagreement? It is unfair to subjugate Basham’s statements by attribution of motives vs disagreement.

Jason – You did not answer the question; you changed the subject to be about how you disagree with David French (which is just fine, as disagreeing is not disrespectful in and of itself – it’s HOW one disagrees). I asked if it is ok to like, post and retweet insults and the like (“David French leads Evangelicals for Satan” is one of Megan’s) is acceptable for a Bible-believing Christian?

Marin- In response (above & below) to your direct question/comments to me-Megan’s comments were probably about the article linked below:

https://babylonbee.com/news/david-french-founds-new-group-evangelicals-for-satan

Nuanced please? One can speak passionately for Trump (I like Kennedy). That does not suggest that he is a prophet or the Jesus of our time. People/media contextualize comments. That is my reflection with French. His premise(s) lack an orbital sense. He focused on certain premises with zero credence to other information. Thus creating a false narrative. I still stand by data and facts that you have done that with the unplanned parenthood and DNC. Megan was correct in her assertion. She left out Unplanned Parenthood. However it (meaning the abortion pill/male vasectomies). The DNC promoted unplanned parenthood. The had a booth inside and provided the Abortion pill outside the event. How can you repeat falsehoods? Marin? Are you exchanging the truth for a lie? Romans warns about that.

Jason –

“She left out Unplanned Parenthold.” Thank you. Confirming I told NO lie (while accusing me of lying, no less). That was my point. Megan left that part, creating an impression and narrative for those who were not there to land on this all being sponsored by the DNC. I find that to be shady journalism. Sounds like you’re a fan of this method.

We disagree.

So tell me how is not checking with primary sources before quoting them showcase and reveal the truth? Either it was a deliberate attempt to distort or laziness on the part of the author. In either case, it is not the truth. I guess you are OK with that, but then I am not surprised by you and your ilk.

Charles-What are you referring to? What source? If you are responding to Marin… she clearly contextualizes Basham’s comments on the DNC and unplanned parenthood. She either didn’t read it what was stated or she made subjective conclusions from words not stated. In other words, she made implications.

Jason, I encourage you to read Megan’s Twitter feed for yourself. Posting things like “They are killing babies at the DNC” and retweeting messages that call it “the DNC abortion mobile clinic” is both inflammatory and inaccurately implying the DNC is sponsoring and providing abortions. There’s no mention or pictures of it being a Planned Parenthood clinic in any of these tweets, despite there being room to do so. I stand by my statement that this is dishonest, and that a journalist at her level and with her experience knows this. We can respectfully disagree.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/19/planned-parenthood-free-emergency-contraceptive-abortion-vasectomies-dnc/74855652007/

I am sorry but the satanic unplanned parenthood was at the DNC. As well as booths at the convention, period. I took pics-If I could I would upload them. I made the trip from Lake Geneva my home to the DNC all week. Stand by your statements. But they are baseless and your narrative is antithetical to the Truth! Thus you lack credibility and open minded people can not put any weight in your narrative. You have misrepresented the DNC as well as Megan Basham. I’ll gladly sent pics to you to debunk what you stand by. What you call “inflammatory”- I call convictions. I just watched the Scott Peterson documentary on Netflix. He was convicted for 2 counts of murder. 1. Wife. 2. Unborn child. The government has a problem. Why did Scott get convicted of 2 murders. When the California government is a prochoice state? Point is like your statements- The government lacks veracity.

In other news the sky is blue.

This book feels like the humbug Wizard of Oz standing behind a curtain furiously spinnging wheels and pushing buttons to generate smoke and mirrors to distract from the demonstrable fact that far from pastors aligning themselves with the “left”, there are far more that have aligned themselves with sedition, treason, lying, abuse, racism, grifting, power, money, etc….

“Ignore the man behind the curtain!”

Your words: …..”fact that far from pastors aligning themselves with the “left”, there are far more that have aligned themselves with sedition, treason, lying, abuse, racism, grifting, power, money, etc….”

Nathan with the words “sedition, treason, lying, abuse, racism, grifting, power, money, etc…” you realize you have perfectly described the Left, right?

Cynthia –

This site is full of articles and research on pastors who have outright stolen, abused, and or covered up abuses within their congregation and communities.

Replies like “you’ve perfectly described the left” is why they can get away with it; more focus on “the Dems”, “the left”, “progressives” and “the libs” than on what’s happening in pulpits.

What’s that verse about taking the plank out of one’s own eye…..

haha – ah…oh that’s funny. No – I was referencing Donald Trump, January 6th, Rudy Guliani, far too many mega (and smaller) church pastors (just read the headlines here), Newsmax, the MyPillow Guy’s delusions, et al.

I have no illusions that the left is perfect nor holds to all “biblical standards” but I recall in 2016 being told by Robert Jeffries that we weren’t voting for a pastor…I guess that doesn’t hold true now?

From Kevin Williamson’s review of the book over at The Dispatch:

Reviewing a book like this is like trying to argue with an avalanche—an avalanche of stupidity and error, to be sure, but an avalanche all the same. I have the same problem with this book I had reviewing Alissa Quart’s similarly idiotic Bootstrapped: The author can make enough errors in a dozen words that the critic needs 400 words to correct them. And so one ends up writing an annotated companion to a work that was not worth reading in the first place, much less annotating.

Ah, I just read this! What a magisterial take down of not only Basham’s unChristian attack, but in general, the whole american religious right’s money making machine of grievance, lies, fear and stupidity… May God have mercy on their souls and somehow bring them to repentance…

One thing to note in JD Greear’s response, is the part 6 where he completely glosses over his rush to judgment.

See the investigation on this affair on this website including his tweet.

https://julieroys.com/excommunicated-baptists-say-megachurch-smeared-them-as-racists-and-so-did-sbc-leaders/

In his response, Greear has a lame: “If anyone was falsely accused, I’m sorry I contributed to that.”

This lack of forthrightness about this incident, makes me think Basham is not wrong in her calling him out.

Never trust or accept any apology that begins with “if”.

Yes, I also wrote that investigative story on First Baptist Church of Naples. Interesting that our reporting was first on that story, but not referenced as a footnote in the book (author’s prerogative). The interest is not in defending any particular pastor, it’s in quoting them accurately and reporting fairly on their positions.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comment policy.

Support Christian Journalism

Church Leaders Outraged By Payouts to Anglican Priest Accused of Sexual Impropriety

With Hurricanes On Horizon, Florida Baptists & Salvation Army Partner For Disaster Relief

Founders Resign from Cross Timbers Church, As Exodus Continues

Televangelists Keith Moore And Creflo Dollar Acquire Multi-Million-Dollar Jets

AME Churches Demand Answers On Fraudulent Loss of Retirement Savings

Robert Morris Resigns from Gateway Church; Victim Says Church Knew Details of Her Abuse Years Ago

Christian Rocker Posts Stunning Response to Recent Apostasy of Christian Leaders

Josh Harris Kisses His Faith Goodbye

Chicago Radio Host & a Former Bodyguard Say James MacDonald Asked Them to Arrange Murders

James MacDonald Took Millions from Harvest & Now Demands Broadcast Ministry

Mancow Airs Shocking Comments By James MacDonald: My Response

Stay in the loop.

Get new articles and breaking news delivered to your inbox.

© 2022 All rights reserved

Hi. We see this is the third article this month you’ve found worth reading. Great! Would you consider making a tax-deductible donation to help our journalists continue to report the truth and restore the church?

DONT SHOW AGAIN

Type to search

• MinistryWatch 1000 Database
• About MinistryWatch
• For Ministry Leaders
• Investigations

Basham Criticized for Naming Johnny Hunt’s Sexual Abuse Accuser in New Book Fellow journalists claim she violated journalistic ethics in ‘Shepherds for Sale’

The New York Times best seller “Shepherds for Sale” is coming under fire by journalists, who say author Megan Basham didn’t follow basic rules of journalistic ethics when she revealed the name of former SBC President Johnny Hunt’s accuser.

Megan Basham / Twitter profile photo

Robert Downen, who was a key reporter about the SBC sex abuse scandal when he worked for the Houston Chronicle, criticized Basham for revealing the accuser’s name in her book, according to Baptist News Global.

He wrote on X , “I’m still working my way through Meg Basham’s new book and will have some thoughts, but want to note that she goes out of her way to name the woman who credibly accused former SBC President Johnny Hunt of sex assault. I can’t think of a single journalistic reason to have done so.”

Downen went on to say that he worked with Hunt’s accuser and her husband for months before they would agree to let him tell their story, and “only with a ton of assurances that we would do everything possible to protect their identities.”

Apparently, Basham found the name in a court document where it was not redacted and chose to publish it, Downen said.

According to the Society of Professional Journalist’s code of ethics , victims of sexual crimes should be “shown compassion” and treated with “heightened sensitivity.” It also calls on journalists to “ recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast .”

While Basham may have legally found the name of Hunt’s accuser, that doesn’t give her “a greenlight to abandon basic ethics. Nor do you get to abandon basic ethics because you find the allegations questionable, or you’ve decided that a victim is less of a victim than they say,” Downen argued.

“Megan Basham’s decision to publicly name our client is one of the reasons why so many abuse survivors choose to stay silent.  The naming of our client served no purpose whatsoever other than to ‘out’ our client in an apparent effort to please those in her relatively small echo chamber,” Boz Tchividjian and Melissa Hogan, attorneys for the accuser, said in a statement to MinistryWatch.

Access to MinistryWatch content is free.  However, we hope you will support our work with your prayers and financial gifts.  To make a donation,  click here .

Julie Roys of The Roys Report also criticized Basham. “Naming a sex abuse survivor without her consent is completely unethical. @HarperCollins needs to pull @megbasham’s book immediately. I wish I could say I was surprised, but Basham has repeatedly shown disdain for survivors,” she wrote on X .

“What’s so egregious is that a secular reporter is schooling a professed Christian reporter on ethics and compassion — and he is right. That’s what we’ve come to. And pastors are actually jumping to Megan’s defense. Let that sink in,” Roys added.

Basham worked for WORLD News Group for several years before moving to her current culture reporter position with The Daily Wire. According to her Daily Wire bio , she has also written for The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Town Hall.

In response to the critics, Basham wrote on X that she had reasons for naming Hunt’s accusers. “Downen, the Guidepost Report, and others portrayed the [accusers] (who were named by their lawyers, not me) as a young, naïve couple (whose ages were never given) who, though not officially under the authority of Johnny Hunt, were enthralled by his influence.” She went on to say that the accusers were SBC insiders and ages 35 and 40.

Tchividjian and Hogan took issue with Basham’s claim that their client’s “identity was revealed when her attorneys failed to redact her name in court filings.”

“The facts are that it was Johnny Hunt’s counsel who, in violation of the court’s protection order, filed a document with the court that did not redact our client’s identity. [Basham’s] misstatement of the facts could have easily been corrected with any basic fact-checking by the publisher.  But then again, we’re not convinced that facts matter all that much to Ms. Basham,” the attorneys added.

Continuing her response to the criticism, Basham added, “I do think when you make public accusations (especially when you aren’t willing to take them to actual authorities like the police or a court) you should be obligated to stand behind them. Then your character and credibility can be evaluated as well. Anything else allows for a system of secret accusers who can enact character assassination while facing no scrutiny themselves.”

She said that journalists showed their bias when “framing of Hunt’s accuser as a victim” not an “alleged victim,” even though that fact “has not been established by any court and no charges to this effect were ever filed.”

Basham did not respond to MinistryWatch’s question about whether she reached out to the Hunt accuser to ask permission or inform her that she’d be named in the book.

TO OUR READERS : Do you have a story idea, or do you want to give us feedback about this or any other story? Please email us: [email protected]

Related posts:

• Johnny Hunt
• Megan Basham
• Shepherds for Sale

Kim Roberts is a freelance writer who holds a Juris Doctorate from Baylor University. She has home schooled her three children and is happily married to her husband of 25 years.

Wall Watchers

Matthews, NC 28106

Email:  [email protected] Toll free: (866) 364-9980

Subscribe to receive our daily emails

• Update Preferences
• Give Online
• Give by Mail or Phone
• Give through Donor Advised Fund
• Donate your Vehicle
• Estate Planning
• Campaign 2024
• Trump Shooting
• Trump Trials
• Israel-Hamas War
• International
• Election Center 2024
• The World and Everything in It
• Record a Preroll

Review - The Chosen

WORLD Radio - Review - The Chosen

The second season of the streaming series about Jesus and his disciples is even better than the first

Photo/Youtube

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Friday, May 7th.

Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day.

Good morning. I’m Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

Before she left for work at her new job, Megan Basham left behind one last review, and we’ll hear that in a moment.

Before we get to that, though, just a quick word about support for this program.

Typically, we do two big funding drives each year: one in December at the end of the year and one at the end of our fiscal year which is June.

What we want to do now, before we get into June, is to encourage you if you’ve never given before to make a first-time gift this month, and join the thousands of your fellow podcast listeners who provide the support we need to produce and deliver this program each day.

A few long-time-giving families let us know they are willing to provide a special incentive, a matching gift. But not just a dollar-for-dollar match, as we did last year. This is a two-dollar-for-one-dollar match, meaning each gift goes that much further.

This is a recognition among our supporters that giving is a team effort. No one expects you to go it alone. We go together. So if you give 50 dollars, they give $100, and so the impact of your gift is tripled: $50 means $150—simple math—a single new gift is a triple new gift.

BROWN: It’s such a generous offer from the families to provide these matching gifts to triple your impact and encourage you to give for the first time.

Just visit wng.org/donate to make your first-ever gift today. Wng.org/donate.

EICHER: I should add that our friends are willing to triple match up to 40-thousand dollars, and they tell us they’re really hoping to give it all. Wng.org/donate.

BROWN: Coming next on The World and Everything in It : streaming the New Testament.

Megan Basham has watched a lot of Christian film and TV productions over the years. But only a few have earned her wholehearted recommendation. Last year’s debut of The Chosen was one of them. So when season two came out earlier this month, she was anxious to see whether it lived up to the promise of the first season.

MEGAN BASHAM, REVIEWER: The first season of The Chosen offered one of the strongest filmed representations of the New Testament I’d ever seen. If anything, the first three episodes of Season Two surpass it.

CLIP: Don’t look at him, look at me. When you were in your lowest moment and you were alone, I did not turn my face from you. I saw you under the fig tree. Rabbi. There it is. You are the Son of God, the King of Israel.

Writer/director Dallas Jenkins and his team continue to take creative risks that pay off by being both more entertaining and more thoughtful than your average network Easter special.

The first episode opens with the framing device of John writing his gospel to reflect on how Jesus’ earthly ministry revealed him to be both God, who was the Word in the beginning before the earth was formed, and yet also a man. As the story quickly returns to the timeline we left off in Season One—the beginning of Christ’s public ministry—we see exchanges that underline this truth.

CLIP: I really am open to suggestions for the reading. I couldn’t. After today, after yesterday, I do not feel very much worthy. Who is worthy of anything? You, but no man apparently. I’m a man, John. And yet. I am who I am.

Once again, the series is especially strong in a suit almost no other Bible-based productions even attempt—humor. We got to know Matthew’s meticulous, borderline-obsessive personality well last year. This season, his Sheldon Cooper-like devotion to detail continues to develop, often in hilarious ways. Like here, where he’s recounting for John his first meeting with Jesus.

CLIP: It was the fourth morning of the third week of the month of Adar, some time during the second hour. It doesn’t have to be precise. Why wouldn’t it have to be precise? Mine will be precise.

Of course we know that Matthew’s gospel was indeed very precise. Finding natural laughs is part of what continues to make The Chosen not just something we feel like we ought to watch in order to support Christian entertainment, but something we want to watch. I’m not sure that would be the case without some fictitious scenes and characters.

When I reviewed Season One about a year ago, several of you wrote to express your concern over the dialogue, scenes, and backstories the series invented for Bible characters. I also heard from a few who object to any on-screen depictions of Jesus based on the Second Commandment’s prohibition against idols. I don’t want to dismiss those concerns, and I had a couple of my own that I shared. But I’ve never been tempted to confuse an actor’s depiction of Jesus in a movie or TV show with the Jesus of the Word.

I think this issue is one of conscience, on which Christians can in good faith differ.

By weaving invented vignettes that we don’t know with Bible stories we know well, Jenkins circumvents our tendency to tune out the familiar. We want to know how a Samaritan robber’s story plays out, so we pay attention.

CLIP: So now you know what you’ve done. The kind of man you’ve helped. Every day I think about that Jew. Naked and alone on the road possibly dead. I could be a murderer.

Yet at the same time, the little side plot is grounded in facts Scripture does offer—the enmity between Israel and Samaria and the parables Jesus told. So the themes contained within the story arc don’t depart from sound doctrine.

This goes for conflict between the characters as well. The series is careful to fully flesh out each disciple and give them individual personalities. Once again, though, the series’ greatest strength is a Jesus who feels like a real man, albeit a perfect man.

We see normal, easy affection between him and the disciples. His holiness is evident, and his authority certain, but his personality isn’t alien-like or distant. You don’t imagine you would feel awkward around him. The Chosen presents the first on-screen Jesus I could picture myself wanting to follow. And, honestly, the first one I could picture liking me and wanting to spend time with me.

CLIP: Ah, there’s that word. “Soon.” It is the most imprecise word in the world. What is soon? A few hours? A few days? Years? One hundred years? A thousand years? Ask my Father in heaven how long a thousand years is then talk to me about soon...

I could go on—especially about how the series deftly shows how, in the disciples’ place, we too likely would have been confused about what Messiah would do though the prophecies were clear. But suffice it to say, without confusing its imagination with Scripture, as entertainment, The Chosen prompted me to reflect more deeply on the real record of Jesus’ ministry on Earth.

I’m Megan Basham.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.

Please wait while we load the latest comments...

Please register, subscribe, or log in to comment on this article.

Related Articles

If you want this website to work, you must enable javascript.

Follow the Money to the After Party

S ecular news outlets from NPR to the New York Times are hailing Tim Alberta’s new book, The Kingdom, The Power, and the Glory , for furthering the popular thesis that evangelicals have abandoned themselves to political idolatry. By “political idolatry” they mean “political conservatism,” as neither Alberta’s book nor the many prestige outlets enthusing over it have a word of criticism for Christians who advance left-wing causes. However, a curious passage in the book suggests that those leveling this charge may be most guilty of infecting the church with partisanship.

Alberta reports on The After Party , a forthcoming program led by Duke Divinity consulting professor Curtis Chang and developed with New York Times columnist David French and Christianity Today editor in chief Russell Moore. The program offers pastors and small groups a curriculum “reframing Christian political identity from today’s divisive partisan options.”

According to Alberta, during its germination phase, the project hit a roadblock. Evangelical donors had little interest in funding an explicitly political Bible study. Thus, to get The After Party off the ground, the trio (all frequent critics of evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump) turned to “predominantly progressive” “unbelievers.” In fact, they turned to secular left-wing foundations. 

Alberta’s book offers no details about the funding of the project, but a bit of internet sleuthing reveals that in May 2022, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors announced that The After Party would be one of the thirty-two beneficiaries of their New Pluralists project, which is investing $10 million to “address divisive forces.” If that money were divided evenly, it would more than cover the entire $250,000 budget of Chang’s umbrella organization, Redeeming Babel, which is behind The After Party. While Chang and company claim their program isn’t focused on parties or policies, the Rockefeller announcement noted it would launch in the “battleground” of Ohio, though none of The After Party founders call that state home.

Rockefeller’s interest in bankrolling Bible studies is a red flag. In the same grant round as The After Party is a group seeking to promote the “leadership of rural LGBTQ+ people.” Another is committed to “keeping the remaining fossil fuel resources in the ground” in the name of “climate justice.” In 2019, The After Party’s benefactor gave $100 million to the Collaborative for Gender and Reproductive Equity, an initiative that funds efforts to safeguard abortion and ensure “youth” have access to “gender-affirming care.” A full accounting of all Rockefeller grantees committed to furthering hard-left causes would require a book long enough to rival Alberta’s.

Rockefeller’s isn’t the only progressive purse with strings attached to The After Party. The project’s website lists One America Movement, an ecumenical group, as one of its partners. The group’s board includes the leader of an LGBTQ-affirming synagogue , as well as a co-founder of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York who excuses rioting as self-defense and has called Jesus a “black radical revolutionary.” One America has received over $2 million from some of the most powerful foundations on the left—such as the Tides Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Walton family’s Catena Foundation, and the John Pritzker Family Fund—all of which fund enterprises promoting abortion, LGBTQ issues, and other left-wing priorities. The Hewlett Foundation, which also directly funds The After Party, is the second largest private donor to Planned Parenthood.

Does anyone really believe these secular progressive grant-makers are interested in developing a church curriculum about politics without an eye toward affecting policy? Or that this curriculum will strengthen evangelicals’ commitment to the very causes progressives despise? Between 2013 and 2014, the Ford , Rockefeller , and Tides foundations contributed a combined $1.3 million to the Evangelical Immigration Table’s “Bibles, Badges, and Business” initiative, launched to mobilize evangelical support for amnesty legislation such as the failed Gang of Eight bill. Hewlett and a host of other major left-wing donors bankrolled the Evangelical Environmental Network’s Evangelical Climate Initiative with the aim of generating churchgoer support for cap and trade legislation. Secular progressive foundations have not hesitated to leverage new evangelical ministries to sway Christians to their political will.

Creating a Bible study curriculum to teach churches how to engage politics is by nature a political act. That’s even truer if you’ve turned for financial support to unbelievers committed to advancing left-wing policies. If these critics of conservative evangelicals are correct that their Trump-voting brothers and sisters are sick with political obsession, then they have the same disease. One would be hard-pressed to identify evangelical voices who’ve done more to bring a divisive focus on politics into the pews—all under the pretense of de-escalation and bipartisanship.

As a pro-life Democrat, Chang blamed the “American Church” for the January 6 riot, saying we “own what happened at the Capitol.” He urged California voters to oppose the recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom. And he leveraged his Christian platform to argue against religious exemptions from vaccine mandates, running the website Christians and the Vaccine, and distributing videos that described the jab as a “redemption” of aborted cell lines—all while acting as a paid consultant for federal health agencies. French and Moore have been no less outspoken on political matters.

To offer a politics curriculum backed by the secular left as the church’s solution to idolatrous co-optation by the right is like suggesting that a man who became obese eating cake and ice cream will lose weight by gorging on pizza and potato chips. As a friend told me, “If you want the church to be less political, start by focusing less on politics yourself.” 

As for those pastors considering whether to bring The After Party into their churches, they should take the advice of the classic film All the President ’ s Men and follow the money.

Megan Basham is a culture reporter for the  Daily Wire.

First Things   depends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Click  here  to make a donation.

Click  here   to subscribe to  First Things .

Image by  Milad Mosapoor  licensed via  Creative Commons . Image cropped. 

Articles by Megan Basham

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.

Filter Web Exclusive Articles

Related articles.

Want more articles like this one delivered directly to your inbox?

Sign up for our email newsletter now!

Search This Blog

Christian heritage news.

Explicitly Christian News and Commentary

• Book Review
• Christian Ethics
• Evangelicalism

Review: "Shepherds for Sale," by Megan Basham

 By Samuel D. James - Posted at Digital Liturgies :

The title expresses this: Shepherds for Sale . What the book wants to be is a devastating exposure of evangelical corruption and fraud. But there are too many factual errors, logical inconsistencies, unwarranted assumptions, and bad-faith interpretations for it to be that. Its usefulness is buried underneath a basic failure to be worthy of its own title.

• Megan Basham's Shepherds For Sale: The Problems With This Book (youtube.com)
• Responding to Megan Basham's Latest Claims (youtube.com)
• “Shepherds For Sale” by Megan Basham – Old News? My Review – The Reformed Reader Blog (wordpress.com)
• “Shepherds for Sale” and Immigration Views: A Mixing of Categories – The Reformed Reader Blog (wordpress.com)
• In Defense of Gavin Ortlund – Jonathan's Headspace (jonathansheadspace.blog)
• Which Shepherds Are For Sale? - Warren Cole Smith - The Dispatch
• We Can't Come Down (mereorthodoxy.com)
• Shepherds, Basham and the Truth about Those ERLC Donations (janetmefferd.com)
• The Basham Believers: No Evidence? No Ethics? No Problem! (janetmefferd.com)
• Basham Criticized for Naming Johnny Hunt’s Sexual Abuse Accuser in New Book – MinistryWatch

Post a Comment

Please feel free to comment, but profanity, anti-Christian or argumentative comments will not be published. Thank you, ed.

Popular Posts

Global religious freedom harmed by government-fostered lies, USCIRF reports

Are there male boxers fighting in the women’s division at the Olympics?

In Step with the Spirit, Out of Step with the Internet

The Hypocritical Duplicity of ‘Evangelicals for Harris’

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

• About Rotten Tomatoes®
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Prime Video
• Most Popular Streaming Movies
• Certified Fresh Movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• 75% Blink Twice Link to Blink Twice
• 97% Strange Darling Link to Strange Darling
• 86% Between the Temples Link to Between the Temples

New TV Tonight

• 96% Only Murders in the Building: Season 4
• -- The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power: Season 2
• -- Kaos: Season 1
• -- City of God: The Fight Rages On: Season 1
• -- Here Come the Irish: Season 1
• -- Terminator Zero: Season 1
• -- Horror's Greatest: Season 1
• -- After Baywatch: Moment in the Sun: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• 92% Bad Monkey: Season 1
• 100% Dark Winds: Season 2
• 100% Pachinko: Season 2
• 78% Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• 33% The Accident: Season 1
• 96% Industry: Season 3
• 86% Average Joe: Season 1
• 33% The Frog: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• 100% Pachinko: Season 2 Link to Pachinko: Season 2
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

30 Most Popular Movies Right Now: What to Watch In Theaters and Streaming

25 Most Popular TV Shows Right Now: What to Watch on Streaming

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

Weekend Box Office: Deadpool & Wolverine Is Back on Top

Movie Re-Release Calendar 2024: Your Guide to Movies Back In Theaters

• Trending on RT
• Re-Release Calendar
• Popular TV Shows
• Renewed and Cancelled TV
• Verified Hot Movies

The Daily Wire

The Daily Wire is not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer ® when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s): Christian Toto , Megan Basham .